After reading the article it got me to thinking about whether Russia renewing their military would be a good thing or bad thing for Russia. It would take up a huge amount of resources and money, that would need to be diverted from a weak (overall) and undiversified Russian economy. The only reason Russia has economic clout is because of its engagement with the world markets. If it withdraws from this or takes actions that affect this, it weakens itself.

I am not saying Russia can't or doesn't have the ability to do it but to regain its former strength would be a herculean task. Beating up weaker neighbors with outdated equipment is one thing but doing more would require much more than I believe many understand. They would need to assess their current assets and engage their stagnant armament research, engineering, and manufacturing industries. And then actually build and deploy their new assets. Stuff like that bankrupts many nations, not to mention the graft and fraud that takes place in many instances.

The old Soviet Union is said to have failed partly under this pressure. So would it be as bad for the rest of the world as many seem to think, or will it just weaken Russia in the end?

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

It would weaken Russia, though with increasing oil and gas prices, Russia will become progressively wealthier, and in the future, who knows.......

As to the effect on the rest of the world, it depends on whether you see a unipolar world (with the USA as the sole super-power) as being better than a more balanced one, with Russia (or Europe, perhaps?) providing a counter-balance.

I'm in favour of a uni-polar world, to be honest, preferably with the US just weak enough that it relies on allies as it does now. I've always thought of the USA as being (generally) a force for good, and some degree of reliance on allies tends to minimise the possibility of the US acting in its own narrow self interests.

We may, those at least who are concerned about such things, comment about Defence cuts, but really, NATO forces are, just about all of them, dramatically better equipped in many critical ways compared to Russia.

Seen the footage from Georgia?
Not only the comments in the link above about air forces, but on the ground, T-62 tanks-the NATO equivalents being the Chieftain, M-60, Leopold 1 and AMX-30 MBT's, none of which are in front line service with NATO countries, or not in any numbers anymore.

Then the T-72 generation and all it's version, even the updated ones are no match for NATO MBT's like M-1, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Leclrec.

At sea, the Russian Navy has suffered years of neglect, their best attack sub in 2000 was lost, the RN Submarine Rescue Service had to rescue a Russian midget sub crew in 2005.

In the air, the best of the SU-27's and Mig-29's have been produced not for the home market, but for export.
More to the point, where is the Russian F-35?
Or F-22?
Or really, Typhoon/Rafale? For the latter two, just upgrading the SU-27/35, however good an aircraft, is really not the same thing.
The not very lo observable looking prototype or technology demonstrator, that flew a few times years ago, seems far from a programme for a new combat aircraft.
It seems a few SU-27 based, S-34 aircraft have been delivered, but that's all.

Putin seems to have improved somewhat, his strategic ICBM forces, but up to now, the Russians have not had to face anyone with world class air defence or fighter aircraft capabilities, so this has not perhaps been a great priority.

Then there are the flying hours for Russian AF pilots, the levels of PGM deployment, command and control, all these issues.
Putin does want to restore Russian military power, but there is a massive backlog of work, since they've taken virtually a 15 year 'holiday' from in depth modernisation.

GDB has listed the military facts, I'll list some of the political ones.

1. When the cold war ended, the Russians were still producing more combat equipment than the west, in spite of the dire straits of the economy, which led to its downfall.

2. The power brokers would basically ensure that one above does not happen again, that is the people power, not the fall.

How much civilian pressure exist in Russia today and has it been growing or diminishing, I reall the Kursk incident where family members were pushing for more information from the Govt., can that still happen today, if it can then one above will contine to hold sway. The more power the people cede to the govenment, the more means they have to get into mischief.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):1. When the cold war ended, the Russians were still producing more combat equipment than the west, in spite of the dire straits of the economy, which led to its downfall.

2. The power brokers would basically ensure that one above does not happen again, that is the people power, not the fall.

But it would happen again, just as it did the first time. NATO, not just the US, outspent the Soviets to their breaking point and second verse would be same as the first. Should the US, Europe and Australia see the Russians as becoming dangerous again, then you'd see how quickly we can produce F-22s and other modern hardware and get it out to our allies and our own forces, with not nearly the economic impact that the same would have on Mother Russia. Oil riches or not, their 15 year holiday has cost them dearly in this regard, I don't think they could catch up in 100 years. Sure, they've made some technological advancements, but industrializing and getting them out to front line forces is an entirely different matter. The US and it's allies already have the production in place, it wouldn't be that difficult to go ahead and build 1000 F-22s, six more Ford Class carriers, four more QE Class carriers, tons more Typhoons, etc.

Honestly if russia wants to be taken seriously then they really need to update their military technology. When you watch the news and see those old T72s rolling down the street it kind of makes me laugh. it's a joke to have technology that old rolling around and try to be taken seriously. Then when you look at their air force and their bomber still has large prop engines compared to our B2 and F-22 Russia is just dated.

While they may be getting money from oil that's going to start slowing down. The fact is that most of the world is sick of dealing with oil, both price and the environmental impact. While it will take a while to move away completely from fossil fuels their income will go down quicly as we start exploring alternative fuels as well as looking into off shore drilling. So it's really going to be hard for russia to update it's military technology.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 6):Then when you look at their air force and their bomber still has large prop engines.

There's nothing wrong with the Bear. Our P-3 also has propellors last time I checked. They both sorta serve the same purpose-maritime recon. Of course, before people jump on me, the Bear also can launch missiles and the Orion has an anti-sub role as well.

Quoting Johns624 (Reply 7):Quoting DL767captain (Reply 6):
Then when you look at their air force and their bomber still has large prop engines.

There's nothing wrong with the Bear. Our P-3 also has propellors last time I checked. They both sorta serve the same purpose-maritime recon. Of course, before people jump on me, the Bear also can launch missiles and the Orion has an anti-sub role as well.

I got yer back, I was going to comment on the "prop" comment too. The Bear is an excellent aircraft, its role has evolved but it is certainly as good as the B-52 is in its job.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

The Bear is indeed an extremely impressive machine, I'd rate it as perhaps the high point of post war Russian aviation, technically and in it's longevity and versatility.

However, you'd not want to be in one trying to attack NATO airspace, even with stand off weapons.

One strength is still, in surface to air systems, both the larger ones as well as tactical systems.
Which a NATO AF has not faced, Iraq in 1991 had at best, 1970's vintage ones.
Not that NATO are unaware of this, either in LO aircraft or decoys/complex ECM systems.
After all, how the Israelis got a nasty surprise in 1973 when the opposition had the then new ZSU cannon and SA-6 SAM's, was a major wake up call that's not been forgotten.

I suspect the real weakness is in areas like command and control, the fast exploitation of recce information, lack of systems comparable to JDAM to name a few.

The problem with Russia now is the same as it has been for the Middle East for the long time - energy wealth is making it easier to live with all the white collar crime and corruption that has infested their society for almost a lifetime. They simply don't have to fix it, so they don't. To produce western levels of wealth it is not enough to have a free economy. One also has to have a degree of what is called "rule of law", so people know that they can achieve more by contributing than by leaching. It is true that China has shortcomings in that area, but they have come a long way. Businesses in many areas in China can rely on some predictable degree of fair treatment. Russia hasn't advanced much beyond Soviet times.

It is very hard for such a society to produce a strong military even if all the right technology and hardware is there. That is one reason the Arabs have been unable to destroy Israel even with a huge advantage in population and resources. The 'culture' of a country's military matters more than the fancy stuff or raw numbers.

Ok i should probably clarify what i meant, because it did come out wrong. It's not that the bear isn't good at its job, it's the fact that it not only looks old but also is old. Yes the B-52 is old also but with all the refurbs it has gone through they are almost like new planes.

When looking at the US bombers you see...
B-1B
B-2A
B-52H
F-117 (recently retired)
F-22
F-35
(I know the last two are more fighters but they still have bomber roles)

The Russian bombers just can not match the US air force. The fact that they are even trying with this old technology just sort of makes me laugh. Today i was reading on fox that Russia said the US missile deal in Poland could lead to military action. This seems to be Russia just trying to act tough when they can't actually back it up.

Now the conflict in Georgia. They knew where our military was so they decided to go for it knowing there isn't much we could do about it. In all honesty I think it is time to start pulling out of iraq, as much as i would hate to look like we are "giving up", the fact is we are spread too thin. We need to concentrate on Afghanistan and also have the resources to deal with iran and russia in whatever they decide to do. All it takes is for Israel to start fighting with iran (who can blame them) and we wouldn't be able to help them very much.

Russia, Iran, and North Korea are going to continue to pull crap like this until we do something to show them we won't be messed with.

The rather scary thing is that the Russians have to know they can't win a conventional war with NATO and nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Their position is weak and only a complete idiot at the Kremlin would think otherwise. This amounts to empty chest-beating and nothing more. Should they go too far, they might find themselves in a situation they can't handle, a situation where NATO decides to go ahead and take them out before they really do get powerful again.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 5):The US and it's allies already have the production in place, it wouldn't be that difficult to go ahead and build 1000 F-22s, six more Ford Class carriers, four more QE Class carriers, tons more Typhoons, etc.

I doubt if the US or the UK could afford to build what you are thinking they could. If they could they would also have to build more planes and escorts plus they would have difficulty finding the manpower to crew them.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 10):It is true that China has shortcomings in that area, but they have come a long way. Businesses in many areas in China can rely on some predictable degree of fair treatment. Russia hasn't advanced much beyond Soviet times.

I visit Russia frequently, I mainly deal with Russian shipyards and have never encoutered any problems of the like you are mentioning, we honestly have more problems with Korean and US yards than we do with the Russians, they pay on time any disputs are settled amicably they are very good customers.

When looking at the US bombers you see...
B-1B
B-2A
B-52H
F-117 (recently retired)
F-22
F-35
(I know the last two are more fighters but they still have bomber roles)

The Russian bombers just can not match the US air force. The fact that they are even trying with this old technology just sort of makes me laugh. Today i was reading on fox that Russia said the US missile deal in Poland could lead to military action. This seems to be Russia just trying to act tough when they can't actually back it up.

Your judgement is full of errors. While it is true that the Russian AF is noticeably behind the USAF, I wouldn't completely dismiss it for nothing like you do.

1) The B-52 has been upgraded yes, but so has the Tu-95. Do you really think those Tu-95s are the same as when they came out of the factory. Which reminds me, the newest Tu-95s are 30 years younger than the newest B-52s.

2) The Su-24 and Su-25 are excellent strike aircraft. They need some electronics updating but they do their job well. Much like the A-10 in the US. If Russia put money towards it, it would be cake to update them with new weapons and systems(hint: Su-39).

3) The Su-34 is outdated??? Come on. Seriously? It JUST started getting delivered to the AF. Small numbers yes, but production has been started and money is the only thing holding back the factory from making hundreds of them. This is another alternative to Su-24/25 replacement.

4) The Tu-22M3 needs upgrading, I will agree with you.

5) Personally, I don't think you should take the Blackjack as a joke like you are doing. Pretty comparable to the B-1B. The problem is that there's 4 times more B-1s than Tu-160s.

The only CLEAR advantage the USAF has over RuAF is Stealth(F-22, B-2) and numbers. The Russian hardware needs a huge electronics/weapons upgrade, the airframes however are not to be blamed or taken lightly. Remember, the USAF uses a lot of old aircraft too, the only reason they're so good is because of their guts and pilots.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13):Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 5):
The US and it's allies already have the production in place, it wouldn't be that difficult to go ahead and build 1000 F-22s, six more Ford Class carriers, four more QE Class carriers, tons more Typhoons, etc.

I doubt if the US or the UK could afford to build what you are thinking they could. If they could they would also have to build more planes and escorts plus they would have difficulty finding the manpower to crew them.

I thought of that but I'm sure being a Kiwi that you're familiar with the "can do" attitude.
I think past wars and threats of wars have shown that we can do a lot when we feel threatened. The point is, all those NATO production resources are already in place while they are clearly not in Russia, they have a LOT of work to do in that area.

The US does have an edge along with its allies over the Russians now. But soviet jet has a point dont underestimate their equipment in full anyway. Russia's biggest down fall is fighting to far from their borders, the US and its western allies are far a head of the Russians in transporting troops and equipment long distances, that does make a huge difference. Right now its estimated the Russians have 20,000 in georgia. If NATO decided to use force to get them out they could send well over 100,000 troops and equipment in just a matter of days. Again I am not faulting the Russians for the war entirely I also fault the Georgian government. I do fault the Russians for their conduct which looks like it hasnt changed since WWII they still havent learned how to win with class yet and that isnt taught over night. So thats what I think they will need to work on before they buy anymore expenive fighter jets or tanks. My personal opinion the Russians shouldnt even try the Ukraine or Poland I have a feeling the outcome will be alot different for them. Then if the US gets involved or they drag us in well will all lose in the end. My take is that the Russian politicians arent any smarter than ours, thats scarey.

I think we don't have to be worried about any military build-up. Keep in mind the majoraty of the former WARPACT is now in the EU and NATO.

Since the cold war ended Russia (and Ukraine and other former Soviet States) have dismantled a very large portion of their military, whereas the western powers did decrease their armies (by abolishing conscription for example in some countries), however did modernize their military and have increased their battle strength and capabilities considerably.

However, Russia does control most of our natural gas (and oil) and they have used that against several countries in Eastern-Europe before. Similar things have NEVER happened during the cold war. They also are a major partner in operations concerning Afghanistan.

I think it is time to concentrate our effort on alternative energy sources and not because of the environment. Our military is at a high enough level to counter anything the Russians would throw at us (which they will never do). We do have to at least keep pace with what the Chinese are building up to prevent funny things to happen in the far east.

Nevertheless the Chinese would probably be the last to start any armed conflict in their area, as 50% of world trade is running past it. I think the Chinese have learned and are learning from Russia's mistake all the time. They will be watching how NATO responds to the current crisis in Georgia

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 14):The only CLEAR advantage the USAF has over RuAF is Stealth(F-22, B-2) and numbers. The Russian hardware needs a huge electronics/weapons upgrade, the airframes however are not to be blamed or taken lightly. Remember, the USAF uses a lot of old aircraft too, the only reason they're so good is because of their guts and pilots.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken seriously, but it's a little hard to take them seriously when you look at them. They look like they were thrown together from a junk yard. And they are in SERIOUS need of an electronics upgrade (like you said) to bring them up to standards. And guts won't get them very far when they can't see the F-22 trailing their bomber.

Yes their aircraft are capable but they are also outdated.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 14):1) The B-52 has been upgraded yes, but so has the Tu-95. Do you really think those Tu-95s are the same as when they came out of the factory. Which reminds me, the newest Tu-95s are 30 years younger than the newest B-52s.

Ok I understand the TU-95s have probably been updated but come on, look at this picture and tell me if you would actually take this bomber seriously!

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):Ok I understand the TU-95s have probably been updated but come on, look at this picture and tell me if you would actually take this bomber seriously!

What's the old saying---"It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"?
So does that mean that the P-3 Orion and C130 Hercules shouldn't be taken seriously because their design is several decades old and they have propellors?

I would like for you to explain why you think that. It's a pretty ignorant statement.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):Ok I understand the TU-95s have probably been updated but come on, look at this picture and tell me if you would actually take this bomber seriously!

Explain to me why it shouldn't be taken seriously? Because it has propellers? Do you realize that no matter what...based on your logic it shouldn't be taken seriously? Hell, Russia could have B-52s and B-1s and the F-22 would still have no problem getting that close for a picture. Your logic fails...

Tell me this. If there was a picture of the same nature but instead it was a B-52 and a Su-27(which is very possible), should I say that the B-52 shouldn't be taken seriously?

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):And guts won't get them very far when they can't see the F-22 trailing their bomber.

It not just them, NOBODY can. That doesn't mean their aircraft are junkyard scrap

Based on your logic, every country in the world has an air force that is a failure, because they can't see the F-22.

Quoting Johns624 (Reply 20):So does that mean that the P-3 Orion and C130 Hercules shouldn't be taken seriously because their design is several decades old and they have propellors?

The Hercules is a different story, as well as the An-22. Props on cargo planes make sense to be short field aircraft that can use unprepared airstrips like the C130. I'm saying that when I look at a bomber that has props compared to a B-2 or even a B-52 I just have a hard time taking it seriously (now when it drops a bomb on my head i may change my mine) but it just doesn't seem like a scary bomber to me.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 21):I would like for you to explain why you think that. It's a pretty ignorant statement.

How is it ignorant, it's my opinion, look at the Tu-95, there's probes everywhere, jagged edges, doesn't flow. Just looks like a piece of junk to me. I know Russians aren't ones to make things look nice (just look at the cockpits) but it seems like an aircraft with flowing lines like the F-16 would perform much better. (even in bomber form)

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 21):Tell me this. If there was a picture of the same nature but instead it was a B-52 and a Su-27(which is very possible), should I say that the B-52 shouldn't be taken seriously?

There probably is a picture somewhere, who knows. But i would still take the B-52 seriously, the Su-27 is not a huge leap in technology like the F-22. It's not stealth, it's not as sophisticated, it's just a fighter jet. What i'm saying is the large impression an F-22 makes next to an aircraft that looks like the Tu-95.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 21):Based on your logic, every country in the world has an air force that is a failure, because they can't see the F-22.

well in a way yes, obviously other countries have a stronger airforce but they can't do too much if they can't see the aircraft. It would apply to the US as well if an F-15 was being trailed by a stealth fighter we would be pretty vulnerable as well. We just so happen to be the ones with the stealth jets.

I think Russia should focus on trying to become an economic powerhouse. Russia needs to diversify it's ecomony outside of oil/gas. There's nothing wrong with a gradual military build-up, replacing the old with the new. But an exponential build-up and conflicts with former USSR member states makes the West grow uneasy. In the longterm this could have an adverse impact on them economically. You'll see less investment in Russia like Boeing's Design Center and the like if they keep going in this direction.

Everyday you're alive is a good day.

25 Keesje
: US Aerospace gets half their income too from the government (Defense). It might work for Russia.

26 Tugger
: And don't forget EU companies! They thrive on government spending as well. Couldn't research them all but a quick easy one was EADS which gets just o

27 Keesje
: Indeed. However the EU members don't buy / export as much weaponary & R&D spending is not comparable to the US. The 50% I mentioned is only for Boein

28 F27Friendship
: you might want to educate yourself before you make a fool out of yourselves. The "propellors" on the Tu-95 are actually counter-rotating prop-fans an

29 ANZUS340
: Seems to me the West would take the Bear quite seriously if it had a couple of nuke cruise missiles strapped to it.